What did the FBI publicly say about the specific emails found on Anthony Weiner’s laptop?

1. What the FBI announced when the laptop material surfaced

In late October 2016 then‑Director James Comey notified Congress that the FBI had discovered emails “pertinent” to the Clinton email investigation in connection with an unrelated probe into Anthony Weiner, and that the bureau was taking steps to review them — a move Comey said required reopening a limited review of the prior case ^{[4] [1]}. The public explanation framed the discovery as newly relevant material found on a device seized during a separate investigation and justified by probable cause to examine whether classified information was involved ^[1].

2. How many emails the FBI said were on the laptop and how many were flagged

FBI public documents and inspector‑general testimony reported enormous volumes on Weiner’s devices — agents processing the devices described “over 300,000 emails” on the laptop, and at one point the team identified roughly 141,000 emails potentially relevant to the Midyear (Clinton) investigation, numbers that the bureau disclosed in its internal communications and later to oversight investigators ^{[2] [5]}. These figures were used by FBI officials to explain the scope of the technical triage and why a warrant and additional processing were required ^[2].

3. What the FBI said they actually reviewed and the limits they acknowledged

The FBI publicly asserted that agents reviewed communications from the laptop that were “pertinent” to the Midyear probe and compared them to material previously examined, with Comey ultimately certifying to Congress that the bureau had reviewed all of the communications they judged pertinent ^[3]. At the same time, internal and later oversight disclosures acknowledged technical limitations — missing metadata, duplication, and sheer volume complicated de‑duplication and automated evaluation, and some reporting and watchdog analyses concluded that vast swaths of material were never exhaustively examined ^{[3] [2]}.

4. Classified material and the legal basis the FBI gave

Court affidavits and the unsealed search warrant made public by the bureau and press outlets explained that initial Midyear findings had identified emails containing classified markings and that the header information discovered on Weiner’s laptop gave probable cause to believe some correspondence “contains classified information,” which the FBI cited as a national‑security justification for obtaining the warrant to search the laptop ^{[1] [6]}.

5. Conflicting narratives and oversight findings

While the FBI’s public statements emphasized that agents pursued and reviewed communications they deemed pertinent and that the additional review produced no prosecutable evidence to overturn Comey’s earlier decision, later reporting and OIG work documented disagreements about the extent of review and how conclusions were communicated; some outlets and commentators argued the bulk of emails were never examined and that internal processes and messaging were imperfect ^{[3] [7]}. Congressional and watchdog records also show political frictions over how the investigation and subsequent disclosures were handled, with critics accusing bureau leadership of inconsistent decision‑making and others defending operational constraints described by agents ^{[8] [2]}.

6. Bottom line: the FBI’s public position and what remains in dispute

The FBI publicly stated it found many emails on Weiner’s laptop that were potentially relevant, secured legal authority to inspect them, and reviewed communications judged pertinent — and the bureau maintained that review did not change the outcome reached earlier in the Midyear probe ^{[1] [3]}. What remains contested in the public record and oversight reports is the breadth and depth of the examination (how many unique messages were actually read, how duplication and missing metadata affected review) and whether the bureau’s public explanations accurately communicated those technical limitations ^{[2] [3]}.